2026 (6) TMI 1107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sdiction of this Tribunal, under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, expressing its grievances being aggrieved as against the impugned order of 21.01.2026, that was passed under Rule 63 Appeal/01/KOB/2026. By virtue of the impugned order under challenge, the order of 31.10.2025, as passed by the Registrar of the Tribunal in the exercise of powers under Rule 28(4) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, has been affirmed, consequentially, resulting into declining to entertain the appeal under Rule 63 of NCLT Rules and to register the petition filed by the Appellant, on the ground that the Appellant had not rectified the defects, as it was pointed out by the Registry of the Tribunal by email dated 15.12.2024. 2. This Company Appeal, was preferred before ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gs had been rejected by the order of the Registrar referred to herein above, i.e., dated 31.10.2025, where the Registrar, exercising his powers conferred under Rule 17 of the Rules, had declined to register the said application in consonance to the provisions contained under Rule 28 Sub-Rule (4) of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The Registrar, while passing the said order, had made the following observations: - "It is found that you have failed to cure the following defects/ new defects found qua Petition/Application/Documents. 1. Defects Subsists: 1. Verifying affidavit to be filed in Form No: NCLT6 of Nclt rules instead of affidavit under section 9(3)(b) on page no: 13 2.Last part of the petition (Page no: 11) not in the format o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting the Company Petition listed and heard before the Tribunal after proper rectification of defects. Hence, there was a change of vakalath and a new counsel was introduced by the Appellant, and after that only, he could get the information about the dismissal of the Company Petition under Rule 28(4) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, by the order of 31.10.2025, and only thereafter he could get the Appeal filed by the newly inducted counsel, which was preferred with a delay of 20 days. 8. The Learned Tribunal, while considering the aforesaid circumstances, had recorded in detail the conduct of the Appellant, observing thereof that, as per the report of the Registry, the Company Petition was filed as back as on 13.12.2024, and the defect was first ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lerk of the counsel took back the physical records on 25.04.2025, and did not bother to refile the same after rectification of defects, that, the Company Petition initially filed on 13.12.2024, too does not deserve to be accepted because the defects were not cured for a long time even after granting permission to the Appellant to rectify the defects, and that the Appeal against the order of the Registrar has been filed after 388 days from the date of filing the petition. Learned NCLT has further observed that since IBC proceedings are being strictly governed by timelines and timely resolution of disputes is the essence of the Code, the Appellant's lack of diligence in pursuing the Appeal cannot be condoned and that the Appellant cannot be r....